Checking candidates' votes on war

By George Fisher

Posted:
01/29/2008 01:31:48 AM PST

Updated:
01/29/2008 01:31:49 AM PST

The statute of limitations on Iraq war votes expires Feb. 5. With party nominees probably fixed, there will be no more political accountability. Voters have one last chance to judge how candidates fared on their most telling character test.

The concern is not that candidates who favored war in 2002 were wrong. Yes, they were wrong to think Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threatened our security. They were wrong to think the president's plans included winning the peace.

If these candidates were simply wrong, we should question their judgment, not their character. But what if they were right? What if they doubted the justice or wisdom of war - and voted to authorize war anyway? What if they supported war to avoid seeming weak and un-presidential?

If candidates put presidential hopes over the lives of thousands of American service members and untold thousands of Iraqis, we should condemn not merely their judgment, but their character.

How are voters to know? We can't see candidates' souls or trust canned rationales for votes. Instead consider the evidence. Compare candidates' 2002 war resolution votes with those of others in their party.

In October 2002 there were 50 Democratic senators and one left-leaning independent. Of them, 29 supported the war resolution, 22 opposed. At first glance, it seems most Democratic senators backed war.

Now check a better barometer of beliefs - votes of senators who faced no re-election race that November and have not run for president. These included 31 Democrats and one independent.

Of them, 17 voted against the war resolution, 15 in favor. Voting no were sober-minded Sens. Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad and Patrick Leahy. Voting yes were near-Republican Sens. John Breaux and Zell Miller, along with upwardly mobile Sens. Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle and Charles Schumer.

That is, those Democratic senators free to vote their consciences tilted against war. But of 14 Democrats facing re-election fights that November, 10 voted for the resolution, only four against.

And here are the numbers that matter most: Of seven Democratic senators who have since run for president, six supported the resolution. Only former Sen. Bob Graham opposed it.

Why did Graham alone make the right call? As the Intelligence Committee chairman, he was perhaps best informed. He was one of very few senators to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, available to all senators 10 days before the vote. Graham said the report left him unconvinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But the six future presidential candidates who voted yes - Sens. Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman - were hardly ill informed. They were among the smartest senators. Their yes votes stand out because these senators rarely played hawk. Kerry and Clinton in particular came of age denouncing the Vietnam War.

Had these senators abandoned youthful ideals, or were they protecting presidential dreams? One clue is their view of the Levin-Reed amendment, a last diplomatic bid against war.

This amendment, offered by Sens. Carl M. Levin and Jack Reed, called on the U.N. Security Council to demand immediate, unimpeded weapons inspections. It authorized the president to wage war if Iraq refused and the Security Council approved use of force. Levin hoped to attract moderate Democrats inclined to support the war resolution.

The amendment reached a vote hours before the resolution. It won just 24 supporters, mainly Democrats who then opposed the resolution. But it drew four thoughtful, largely moderate senators who crossed from supporting the resolution - Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl and Jay Rockefeller. Feinstein and Rockefeller were among the half-dozen senators who read the NIE that swayed Graham.

Not one future presidential candidate supported the amendment. All joined Republicans and conservative Democrats to give the president immediate war-making authority.

Do these voting patterns prove Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman backed war to boost presidential hopes? No. But the evidence raises strong suspicions that ambitions shaped votes. There is enough evidence to demand that those candidates still seeking the White House persuade us otherwise.

Maybe they honestly believed war was lawful, just and essential to America's security. Maybe they thought the president's war-making authority would force Iraqi concessions and avoid war.

But if they voted for war despite grave doubts and certain bloodshed so they could one day win the White House, we should not send them there. It would mock morality to reward them with the prize for which they traded others' lives.

GEORGE FISHER is a Stanford University law professor. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.